France's 'Rich' Say: Tax us more

[xj0hnx]

The rich actually create jobs in America.

America has been waiting since the Regan administration.

Do you are the rest of the libtards actually think that those making >$30,000 are "creating jobs"? Please enlighten us as to who IS creating the jobs if it isn't the "rich"?

 

[Engineer]

Do you are the rest of the libtards actually think that those making >$30,000 are "creating jobs"? Please enlighten us as to who IS creating the jobs if it isn't the "rich"?

Right now? Nobody! :hmm:

 

[Engineer]

Jesus christ you haven`t learned anything have you, it was entirely financed by credit.

Not to mention that many families are now two (ore more) earners.

 

[BoberFett]

Jesus christ you haven`t learned anything have you, it was entirely financed by credit.

Lower and middle class earnings growth has not exceeded the rise in inflation in 40 years, furthermore, lower and middle class buying power for actual wages earned not including credit purchases has not increased in as many years as well.

Sure, you can buy more stuff, but rather than being on one income, families now have 2 incomes, credit card debt, and home equity loans which is what got the USA into this mess to start off with! What are you going to do now, put the kids to work

The difference between now and 40 years ago was that a) credit cards were not prominently used b) there were really no home equity loans and c) people did not carry heavy mortgages on overinflated properties, oh and d) the USA wasn`t laden with debt and interest payments to the same degree.

By the way sorry there are no question marks in there, my keyboard is messed up.

And who's fault is that? Is it any coincidence that the wealthy are loaning the poor money to buy shit they don't need and those same wealthy people are getting rich by outsourcing the work the poor Americans used to do to China? The wealthy are eating the poor and middle class from both sides, and we're all apparently stupid enough to go along with it.

 

[blackangst1]

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Thanks drebo. Too bad there isnt a way to specify what someone wants their "gift" to go to.

 

[xj0hnx]

Right now? Nobody! :hmm:

🙄

Ok aside from the fact that there are actually jobs out there, let's pretend there aren't ...when were aren't facing double digit unemployment is it the > $30,000 a year people "creating jobs"

 

[BoberFett]

🙄

Ok aside from the fact that there are actually jobs out there, let's pretend there aren't ...when were aren't facing double digit unemployment is it the > $30,000 a year people "creating jobs"

One could argue that consumer spending does indeed drive job creation, the economy is a feedback loop. While the wealthy are the ones deciding whether to create a new job or not, they do so based on demand.

 

[JSt0rm]

While the wealthy are the ones deciding whether to create a new job or not, they do so based on demand.

Not tax cuts

 

[BoberFett]

Not tax cuts

Not unless the tax cuts come with strings attached, but then that's just more social engineering that's bound for failure because it will be gamed. Complex systems always are.

 

[Fern]

We do have a similar pledge for rich americans though. It's the gates/buffet charity pledge.

German Millionaire on the gates/buffet pledge.

SPIEGEL: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what were your first thoughts?
Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable.
SPIEGEL: But doesn't the money that is donated serve the common good?
Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.
Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.
SPIEGEL: Do the donations also have to do with the fact that the idea of state and society is such different one in the United States?


Krämer: Yes, one cannot forget that the US has a desolate social system and that alone is reason enough that donations are already a part of everyday life there. But it would have been a greater deed on the part of Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet if they had given the money to small communities in the US so that they can fulfil public duties.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710972,00.html

Exactly what I said elsewhere (in the Buffet thread).

We need a stronger estate tax.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The next bubble is obviously govt spending. When it collapses it will make the tech\stock market bubble and housing bubble look like childs play.

Bingo.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Reading is fundemental lol.

OK, it says theyre willing to voluntarily pay more.



I believe thats further than just saying "we need to be taced more". TBH, Im not sure how one would actually pay more (like the mantra, "they can always send more"). Since our system is set up based on income, Im not sure if the IRS (or France's version) can accept more than whats required. But Im speaking off the cuff on this point.

Of course the IRS can accept more (technically it would be the US Treasury just like when you pay income taxes).

The IRS has literature etc on it. Payments to the US govt, or any state/local govt entity, are tax deductible. I've posted links to some IRS info about it.

Fern

 

[drebo]

Thanks drebo. Too bad there isnt a way to specify what someone wants their "gift" to go to.

Indeed. I've been against the "general fund" for a long, long time.

It's always been my opinion that any particular program should have a very well defined source of funding and accounting.

 

[Ausm]

I don't understand this picture. Is this supposed to imply that Paul Krugmen was advocating a housing bubble, and because of that he 'fails'? Because that quote is taken out of context and actually means the opposite. So I take it to mean that you support creating market bubbles that end in periodic recessions?

It's taken out of context.

 

[ProfJohn]

When are the poor going to stop asking for more handouts?

Why does 'shared' sacrifice always mean the rich giving more and not the poor taking less?


Has Obama ever given a speech about the ills of the welfare state and how it create dependency among those who rely on it?

Or suggested that people need to take more steps to take care of themselves instead of waiting on government to do it all for them?

 

[xj0hnx]

One could argue that consumer spending does indeed drive job creation, the economy is a feedback loop. While the wealthy are the ones deciding whether to create a new job or not, they do so based on demand.

Not really, an individual can can develop a product/skill that can be used to trade for goods/money, but they aren't going to be creating any jobs until that product/skill sells enough for that individual to employee someone else. Regardless of demand someone with no money isn't going to be creating a job for someone else.

 

[BoberFett]

Not really, an individual can can develop a product/skill that can be used to trade for goods/money, but they aren't going to be creating any jobs until that product/skill sells enough for that individual to employee someone else. Regardless of demand someone with no money isn't going to be creating a job for someone else.

They created a job for themselves. When the demand for their skill or product outstrips that individuals ability to create it, then that person will create another job. But it still all stems from demand.

 

[RbSX]

Not to mention that many families are now two (ore more) earners.

I specifically said that in my post too.

 

[RbSX]

So, you are saying the poor and middle class are made up of complete fucking morons? I agree. People need to learn to not buy stuff that they can't afford. Until then, the rich will get richer and the middle and poor classes will only get worse.

Yes that is what I'm saying basically. Every idiot that thinks that there has been growth is full of shit.

Sure, there has been, but it's with money people don't have and eventually have to pay back to someone. The problem is, jobs are disappearing, and people in the USA don't seem to f*cking believe in having a nest egg savings.

The best thing that could happen to personal finances in America is banning personal credit, and requiring a substantial amount down say -- 30% like what it used to be 20-25 years ago to get a mortgage.

Sure, it would topple the American economy for a little while, but it would also reset it to NATURALLY would be without credit inflating it.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes that is what I'm saying basically. Every idiot that thinks that there has been growth is full of shit.

Sure, there has been, but it's with money people don't have and eventually have to pay back to someone. The problem is, jobs are disappearing, and people in the USA don't seem to f*cking believe in having a nest egg savings.

The best thing that could happen to personal finances in America is banning personal credit, and requiring a substantial amount down say -- 30% like what it used to be 20-25 years ago to get a mortgage.

Sure, it would topple the American economy for a little while, but it would also reset it to NATURALLY would be without credit inflating it.

:thumbsup:

Of course neither party wants that, so we're going to continue what we've been doing and pretend that doing the same thing will have different results.

This time I'm sure!

 

[RbSX]

:thumbsup:

Of course neither party wants that, so we're going to continue what we've been doing and pretend that doing the same thing will have different results.

This time I'm sure!

I was supposed to move to the States, I love the USA, but seeing reactions like this to things that just make BASIC FINANCIAL COMMON SENSE, makes me happy that I'm not down there right now.

edit: It amazes me how a socialist paradise such as France and to a certain extent Canada can make sweeping cuts so quickly, when the capitalist paradise is not seemingly capable of financial prudence.

It is stunning.

 

[Engineer]

I specifically said that in my post too.

Sorry, missed it (skimmed over it and then jumped on to new HP Touchpad to play with). 😳

 

[MagickMan]

They are free to donate to the private charity of their choice. I'm sure the French treasury accepts donations.

I keep telling people to just send checks to the US Treasury Dept if they feel the need to give more, but they won't do it. 🙁

"Make it compulsory for everyone, I don't want to be alone in this!" seems to be the mantra of the "progressives".

 

[boochi]

In France they should pay more. After all, they average 37 paid vacation days a year compared to our 13.

 

[Jhhnn]

When are the poor going to stop asking for more handouts?

Why does 'shared' sacrifice always mean the rich giving more and not the poor taking less?


Has Obama ever given a speech about the ills of the welfare state and how it create dependency among those who rely on it?

Or suggested that people need to take more steps to take care of themselves instead of waiting on government to do it all for them?

Nice strawman! The vast, vast majority of govt spending isn't just handed out, but rather done in exchange for products & services, created by people who work at jobs or who paid into their retirement, aka SS.

While the merits of obtaining particular goods & services are debatable, the actual mechanism is not.

In the context of reality, you have no argument.